Baker v. Bailey
782 P.2d 1286 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a written contract is clear and unambiguous, the parol evidence rule bars the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral understandings to alter its terms. A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot succeed without an underlying breach of the express terms of the contract.
Facts:
- In 1976, Arthur and Elma Bailey moved a mobile home onto property owned by their daughter and began using the property's water line.
- In 1982, the daughter sold 45 acres to Grant and Norma Baker, while transferring a one-acre parcel containing the mobile home to the Baileys.
- To ensure the Baileys had water, a Water Well Use Agreement was signed, which explicitly stated the water rights were solely for the Baileys and would terminate if they sold the property. This was included to address Mrs. Baker's concern about future neighbors.
- The Baileys believed there was an oral understanding that the Bakers would extend water rights to a 'reasonable purchaser,' though this was not written in the agreement.
- The Bakers also obtained a right of first refusal to purchase the Baileys' one-acre parcel if they ever decided to sell.
- In 1984, the Baileys listed their property for sale for $47,500, representing that it included water access.
- After the property was listed, water system problems arose, and the Bakers informed the Baileys they would not provide water to any new owner, per the written agreement.
- Unable to sell the property without water for its listed value, the Baileys accepted an $8,000 offer, representing the value of the improvements alone, and notified the Bakers.
- The Bakers then exercised their right of first refusal and purchased the one-acre property from the Baileys for $8,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The Bakers filed a lawsuit against the Baileys in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, to recover unpaid expenses.
- The Baileys filed a counterclaim against the Bakers, seeking damages for breach of the Water Well Use Agreement.
- The District Court, acting as the trial court, found the Bakers liable for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The District Court also found the Baileys liable for only a portion of the well's expenses.
- The Bakers, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Montana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party breach a written contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by enforcing the contract's clear and unambiguous terms, even if those terms conflict with an alleged prior oral understanding between the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McDonough
No, a party does not breach a written contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by enforcing the contract's clear terms. The court reasoned that this is a classic parol evidence problem. The Parol Evidence Rule excludes extrinsic evidence, such as prior oral understandings, when parties have reduced their agreement to an integrated writing. The Water Well Use Agreement was clear and unambiguous, stating that water rights were for the 'sole benefit' of the Baileys and would terminate upon conveyance. The court's duty is to apply the plain language of the contract, not to look for unstated intentions. Because the Bakers did not breach the express terms of the contract by refusing to supply water to a new owner, their actions cannot constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as a breach of the covenant is predicated on a breach of the underlying contract.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the primacy of the parol evidence rule, emphasizing that clear, written contracts will be enforced as written, regardless of conflicting oral understandings. It establishes in this jurisdiction that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not create a freestanding duty but is intrinsically linked to the performance of the express terms of the contract. Therefore, the covenant cannot be used to contradict or add terms to a clear written agreement. This decision provides stability for commercial transactions by assuring parties that they can rely on the explicit language of their contracts without fear of later alteration by courts based on extrinsic evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Baker v. Bailey